City Council Agenda Packet 01-11-2010AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 11, 2010 – 7 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2A. Approval of Minutes - December 14, 2009 Regular Meeting
2B. Approval of Minutes – December 29, 2009 Special Meeting
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
b. Council Updates:
1) Snowstorm (Bob)
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of approving an off-sale 3.2 beer license for Kwik Trip (formerly
Shell Station)
C. Consideration of adopting amendments to City Ordinance 8-1-11, regarding snow
removal and ice control from sidewalks
D. Consideration of approving farm lease agreement for 10 acres of farmland at
Bertram Chain of Lakes
E. Consideration of adopting the City Business Hours schedule and corresponding
policy for approval of schedule changes
F. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-02 approving final payment to Knife
River and accepting improvements for Kevin Longley Drive, Jerry Liefert Drive
and Hawthorne Place North Street Improvements, City Project No. 08C010
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-01 to accept a contribution from
Washburn Computer Group for Fire Department rescue equipment
H. Consideration of approving purchase of surveillance (security) system for the
FiberNet Monticello Central Office/Video Head-end Building
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion
7. Consideration of adopting an ordinance establishing the 2010 Fee Schedule
8. Consideration of approving appointments for 2010
9. Consideration of directing staff to review and recommend changes to the City’s Rental
Licensing Ordinance
10. Consideration of policy recommendations as related to City fees and special assessments
11. Consideration of establishing an Administrative Assistant position and authorizing
advertisement of the position
12. Council Update – Feasibility Report preparation for 2010 Street Reconstruction, City
Project No. 10C001
13. Approve payment of bills for January 11th
14. Adjournment
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments. (TE)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to ratify the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred
recently in the departments listed. It is recommended that the Council officially ratify the
hiring/departure of all listed employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
A.1 BUDGET IMPACT: None
A.2 STAFF WORK LOAD IMPACT: Until the positions are filled again, existing staff
would pick up those hours.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. There is no
other recommendation but for the Council to exercise the authority given to them by state
statute.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees.
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Clarence Maanum Rink Attendant Parks 12/15/09 Seasonal
Frank Robinson Rink Attendant Parks 12/15/09 Seasonal
Joseph Brooks Rink Attendant Parks 12/26/09 Seasonal
Ryan Knott Finance Intern Finance 1/4/10 PT
Emily Cook Slide Attendant MCC 12/22/09 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
Gary Anderson Voluntary Building Dept.1/15/2010 FT
Joseph Brooks Voluntary Parks 1/3/2010 Seasonal
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A council_employee list.xlsx: 1/8/2010
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
5B. Consideration of approving application for Off-Sale 3.2 Beer License – Applicant: Kwik
Trip, Inc (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received an application for an off-sale 3.2 beer license for the Kwik Trip
convenience store to be located at 9440 State Hwy 25 in Monticello, formerly the Shell Station.
The license fee for an off-sale beer license is $100 annually, which would be prorated from
February through June 2010.
A1. Budget Impact: Annual license fees cover costs of processing licenses.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There will be minimal additional work as staff will include
this license with the annual licensing process.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the application for an off-sale 3.2 beer license for the Kwik Trip
convenience store at 9440 State Hwy 25.
2. Do not approve license application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 for approval of the license application. Kwik Trip, Inc
has provided a completed application, insurance certificate and license fees to the City. Upon
approval by Council, the appropriate information will be sent to the State.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
License application
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
1
5C. Consideration of adopting amendments to City Ordinance 8-1-11, regarding snow
removal and ice control from sidewalks. (BP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Staff has seen a number of violations of the current sidewalk-clearing ordinance
which reads as follows:
8-1-11: TIME OF REMOVAL ICE AND SNOW: The owner or occupant
of every building or tract of land within the City fronting upon any street
having a sidewalk abutting upon such premises shall clear such sidewalk
of snow within forty-eight (48) hours following the termination of any
snowfall of two (2) inches or more or the formation of ice from any cause.
If such snow and ice is not removed by the owner or occupant within the
time specified herein, the same shall be removed or controlled under the
direction of the Public Works Director and the City shall be reimbursed
for the expense of such removal by the property owner within 30 days per
the current City fee schedule. If payment is not received within 30 days
the costs shall be levied against the property owner as a special
assessment and collected as in the case of other special assessments.
The existing ordinance has a pitfall that does not provide a reasonable action for ice.
Complete removal of ice from sidewalks would be difficult in most situations. To
remedy the safety issues that result from sidewalks that are snow packed or forming ice,
“Ice Control” is more appropriate of an action since chemical application is the most
effective process to reduce ice formation to an acceptable level. As such the following
ordinance language is proposed:
8-1-11: TIME OF SNOW REMOVAL, AND ICE CONTROL: The owner
or occupant of every building or tract of land within the City fronting
upon any street having a sidewalk abutting upon such premises shall clear
such sidewalk of snow within forty-eight (48) hours following the
termination of any snowfall of two (2) inches or more or control the
formation of ice from any cause. If such snow is not removed or ice is not
controlled by the owner or occupant within the time specified herein, the
same shall be removed or controlled under the direction of the Public
Works Director and the City shall be reimbursed for the expense of such
removal by the property owner within 30 days per the current City fee
schedule. If payment is not received within 30 days the costs shall be
levied against the property owner as a special assessment and collected as
in the case of other special assessments.
With a limited snow budget and overtime restrictions, staff proposes to encourage
property owners to employ local businesses for these private services by charging a rate
slightly above that of private business. Also proposed is to tier the offenses to show the
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
2
seriousness of violating the ordinance. This reinforces the responsibility of the property
owner to maintain their frontage.
The fee schedule set in 2009 for enforcement of ordinance 8-1-11 was not enough to
cover costs of our city crew and equipment. Complaints by neighboring properties
sometimes required enforcement of blocks of vacant lots where no attempts were made to
clear snow. Therefore the fees that are being proposed for 2010 are as follows. These
fees would be adopted with the proposed 2010 fee schedule.
$35 per lot first offense per season
$50 per lot second offense per season
$75 per lot maximum after second offense per season
$75 mobilization charge per offense at discretion of city staff
$35 processing fee would be added to each billed offense
A1. Budget Impact: Funds received by the City for clearing sidewalks will be
returned to the general fund or the snow removal budget.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The revised ordinance language will minimally impact
staff in the administration of the ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt City Ordinance 8-1-11 as amended.
2. Motion to deny adoption of amendments to City Ordinance 8-1-11.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends that the Council approve Alternate #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed amendments to City Ordinance 8-1-11
“Notice” letter to residents
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
5D. Consideration of approving Farm Lease Agreement for 10 acres of farmland at
Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. (TP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello and Wright County own approximately 319 acres of the land at
Bertram Chain of lakes Regional Park. The City and County were approached by the
YMCA’s farmer (Mr. Mark Holker) inquiring about renting the newly purchased park
land. The YMCA has about 35 acres of farmland that adjoins the City/County land. The
farmland is only accessible by going through City/County park land. The City of
Monticello Parks Department and the Wright County Parks Department constructed a
parking lot and an access gate for vehicles and agricultural equipment. Mr. Holker is
asking to rent 10 acres of land. The Farm Lease Agreement was brought to the Bertram
Chain of Lakes Advisory Board and passed with a unanimous vote to let Mr. Holker
continue farming the 10 acres of land. The advisory board also set up a flat rate of
$500/year for rental of the 10 acre parcel. The lease agreement will be a yearly renewal
with the City/County and Mr. Holker.
A1. Budget Impact: Mark Holker will pay $500/year to rent the land.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve renewable farm lease with Mark Holker for the 10 acre parcel
located at the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park for a yearly rental fee of
$500.
2. Motion to deny farm lease with Mark Holker.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1, thus allowing Mark Holker to continue farming
the 10 acre parcel for the rental fee of $500 per year with a renewable lease.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Aerial map of 10-acre parcel
Proposed Farm Lease
Council Agenda: 1/11/10
1
5E. Consideration of adopting City Business Hours schedule and corresponding policy
for approval of schedule changes (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review the attached table that identifies hours of operation of
each facility serving the public. This schedule presented formally to the City Council is
intended to be presented to Council on an annual basis for review and approval. This is
the first annual review of the hours of operation of each facility. The table identifies the
schedule that has been followed in years past.
Please note that the facilities schedule includes a policy statement that says that
modifications to the schedule require Council approval. Decisions to close facilities due
to inclement weather or other reason would be made by the City Administrator after
consultation with the Department Head and Mayor.
Liquor Store. City Council many change the schedule as desired in any respect but staff
would like to draw your attention to certain areas that you may want to discuss.
Specifically, Council is asked to take a look at the Liquor Store schedule and determine if
Council would like to have it open during New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day or
Independence Day. Historically, the liquor store has been closed for these holidays.
According to State Statue, it is permissible to have liquor stores open on these days.
Similarly, the Liquor Store has always closed at 4:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. State Law
allows the store to stay open as late as 8:00 p.m. Council is asked if there is a desire to
extend hours on Christmas Eve beyond 4:00 and if so, how far.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the City Business Hours of operation as listed in the attached
table without changes.
2. Motion to adopt hours of operation as listed in the attached table with the
exception that the Liquor Store to be open from 9:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Memorial
Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and New Year’s Day, and until 8:00 p.m. on
Christmas Eve.
3. Motion to modify proposed hours of operation as discussed at the meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #2. There do not appear to be strong reasons for
modifying existing schedules with the exception of the Liquor Store schedule. Due to
the fact that there is only one liquor store in town, there is a special responsibility to be
open during Holidays since there is no other place in town where a customer can go for
the product.
Council Agenda: 1/11/10
2
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
City Business Hours proposed schedule
A B C D E F G H
City Hall Public Works Public Works FiberNet FiberNet DMV Liquor Store MCC
Open to Office Open Working Head-end Open to Open to Open to Open to
Public Hrs (Contract)Working Hours Public Public Public Public
1 Standard Hours:(Fri to 2pm)(Tues to 7pm)
Monday - Friday 8am - 4:30pm 7:30am - 4pm 7:30am - 4pm 7:15am-4:30pm4 8am - 5:30pm 8am - 4:30pm 9am - 10pm 5am - 10pm
2 Saturday Closed Closed Closed Closed5 9am - 1pm 9am - 1pm 9am - 10pm 7am - 9pm
3 Sunday Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed 9am - 9pm
4 Seasonal Hours:(summer)(May1-Oct31)
Monday-Thursday may start earlier 5am - 9pm
Friday if heat issues 5am - 8pm
Saturday 7am - 8pm
Sunday 9am - 6pm
5 New Years Eve Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
6 New Years Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed2 9am - 5pm
7 Martin Luther King Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Standard Closed Standard Standard
8 Presidents Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Standard Closed Standard Standard
9 Easter Sunday Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed Closed
10 Memorial Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed1 9am - 5pm
IF Th,F,Sat
11 Independence Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed 9am - 6pm1 Closed
12 Labor Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed1 9am - 5pm
13 Columbus Day Standard Standard Closed Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
14 Veteran's Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Standard Closed Standard Standard
15 Thanksgiving Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed Closed
16 Thanksgiving Friday Closed Closed Standard Closed5 Standard Closed Standard Standard
17 Christmas Eve 8am-12pm 7:30-11:30am 7:30-11:30am 7:15am-11:15pm Standard 8am-12pm 9am - 4pm3 close at 2pm
18 Chrismas Day Closed Closed Closed Closed5 Closed Closed Closed Closed
1 - Liq Store currently closed these Holidays - recommend opening from 9am-6pm (except Sun)4 - Currently, FNM Tech working 9am-7pm Mon-Wed
2 - Liq statutes allow staying open all day New Year's (except Sunday) - recommend being open 5 - Currently, FNM Tech "on call" weekends/holidays
3 - Liq statutes allow staying open to 8pm Christmas Eve (except Sunday) - recommend extending hours
POLICY: Modifications require Council approval. Decisions to close facilities due to inclement weather (or other reason) to be made by City Administrator
after consultation with the Department Head and Mayor.
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
5F. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-02 authorizing final payment to Knife
River and accepting improvements for the Kevin Longley Drive, Jerry Liefert
Drive, and Hawthorne Place North Street Improvements, City Project No. 08C010
(2008-10C) (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Kevin Longley Drive, Jerry Liefert Drive, and Hawthorne Place North Street
Improvements included a mill and overlay with some curb replacement along Kevin
Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive as well as drainage and pavement improvements
along a portion of Hawthorne Place.
The project was substantially completed in November 2008. Remaining work that has
since been completed included minor punch list items and finaling contractor quantities.
The Council is being requested to accept the project as complete and approve final
payment to Knife River in the amount of $14,625.91. The following paperwork will need
to be submitted for final payment to be released:
1. Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax (IC134 forms).
2. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by
reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured (lien
waivers).
3. Consent of Surety to Final Payment certification from the contractor’s surety.
4. Two-year maintenance bond. It should be noted that the maintenance bond will
start and extend two years from the date of final acceptance of the project by the
City Council.
The final payment request represents the final quantities completed on the contract and
the release of the retainage on the contract.
All punch list items assembled for this project have been completed, and WSB &
Associates, Inc. is indicating the project is complete and ready for final payment in
accordance with the contract and City of Monticello Engineering and Construction
Standards.
The project was funded through special assessments, utility funds, and street
reconstruction funds. An assessment hearing was held for improvements on Kevin
Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive in November 2008 with the final assessment roll
adopted and certified to the County in 2008. This final construction cost was included in
the adopted assessment roll.
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-02 to accept the improvements and approve
the final payment of $14,625.91 to Knife River subject to receipt of final
paperwork.
2. Do not adopt the resolution to accept the improvements and approve final
payment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-02
Letter from WSB with Construction Pay Voucher No. 3 (Final)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02
APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS
KEVIN LONGLEY DRIVE, JERRY LIEFERT DRIVE, AND
HAWTHORNE PLACE NORTH IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 08C010 (2008-10C)
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract with the City of Monticello awarded to Knife River, Inc.
of Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, the contractor has satisfactorily completed the work for the
improvements to Kevin Longley Drive, Jerry Liefert Drive and Hawthorne Place North including
other appurtenant work in accordance with the contract;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINESOTA that
the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved and that the Mayor and City
Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract subject to
receipt of the following:
1) Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
290.92 requiring withholding state income tax;
2) Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the
contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured;
3) Consent of Surety to Final Payment certification from the contractor’s surety; and
4) Two year maintenance bond to extend two years from the date of acceptance of the project by the
City Council.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 11th day of January, 2010.
___________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Project Material Status
Item
No.
Item Description Units Unit Price Contract
Quantity
Quantity to
Date
Current
Quantity
Amount to
Date
SCHEDULE A - KEVIN LONGLEY AND JERRY LIEFERT DR - MILL AND OVERLAY
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $2,750.23 1 1 0 $2,750.23
2 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT $3.76 726 785 0 $2,951.60
3 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD $9.67 17 15.3 0 $147.95
4 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH SQ YD $9.67 11 2 0 $19.34
5 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $2.69 96 96 0 $258.24
6 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE SQ YD $1.13 6610 6294 0 $7,112.22
7 2350.501 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $62.79 1350 1112.6 0 $69,860.15
8 2350.502 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $70.76 130 193.42 0 $13,686.40
9 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON $1.79 765 600 0 $1,074.00
10 2504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $159.53 2 2 0 $319.06
11 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN MODIFIED D LIN FT $13.43 726 935 0 $12,557.05
12 2531.602 CLEAN & SEAL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER EACH $18.80 67 72 0 $1,353.60
13 2531.604 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD $67.69 17 18.3 0 $1,238.73
14 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN (INCL. TOPSOIL & FERT.) SQ YD $7.36 600 460.6 460.6 $3,390.02
Totals For Section SCHEDULE A - KEVIN LONGLEY AND JERRY LIEFERT DR - MILL AND OVERLAY: $116,718.59
SCHEDULE B - HAWTHORNE PL N IMPROVEMENTS
15 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $598.53 1 1 0 $598.53
16 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT $3.22 240 242 0 $779.24
17 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD $2.95 1100 1030 0 $3,038.50
18 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $2.69 100 98.5 0 $264.97
19 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CU YD $16.12 85 76 76 $1,225.12
20 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MOD TON $17.73 185 111.3 111.3 $1,973.35
21 2350.501 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $72.84 95 97.84 0 $7,126.67
22 2350.502 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $71.46 125 146.9 0 $10,497.47
23 2350.503 TYPE LV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR DRIVEWAYS SQ YD $17.10 80 64 0 $1,094.40
24 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON $1.79 60 60 0 $107.40
25 2502.541 6" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT $13.43 250 250 0 $3,357.50
26 2503.511 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V LIN FT $32.23 80 80 0 $2,578.40
27 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPECIAL (2'X3' CB) EACH $1,074.38 1 1 0 $1,074.38
28 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCH BASIN) EACH $483.47 1 1 0 $483.47
29 2506.602 CONNECT INTO EXISTING CATCH BASIN EACH $268.59 1 1 0 $268.59
30 2506.602 8" PVC DRAIN BASIN EACH $1,342.97 1 0.75 0.25 $1,007.23
31 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN MODIFIED D LIN FT $13.43 240 280.2 0 $3,763.09
32 2573.603 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT $2.95 100 0 0 $0.00
Totals For Section SCHEDULE B -HAWTHORNE PL N IMPROVEMENTS: $39,238.31
SCHEDULE D - ALTERNATE 2
34 2506.602 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (SPECIAL) EACH $208.37 14 24 0 $5,000.88
Totals For SCHEDULE D - ALTERNATE 2: $5,000.88
Project Totals: $160,957.78
Page 2
Project Payment Status
Owner: City of Monticello
Client Project No.: 2008-10C
Client Contract No.:
Project No.: 01627-93
Contractor: Knife River
Contract Changes
No. Type Date Description Amount
Change Order Totals: $0.00
Payment Summary
No. From
Date
To Date Payment Total
Payment
Retainage
Per
Payment
Total
Retainage
Total
Payment +
Retainage
Work
Certified Per
Payment
Total Work
Certified
1 11/1/2008 11/30/2008 $139,459.51 $139,459.51 $7,339.97 $7,339.97 $146,799.48 $146,799.48 $146,799.48
2 12/1/2008 5/29/2009 $6,872.36 $146,331.87 $361.71 $7,701.68 $154,033.55 $7,234.07 $154,033.55
3 &
FINAL 5/30/2009 12/21/2009 $14,625.91 $160,957.78 ($7,701.68) $0.00 $160,957.78 $6,924.23 $160,957.78
Payment Totals: $160,957.78 $0.00 $160,957.78 $160,957.78
Project Summary
Material On Hand: $0.00
Total Payment to Date: $160,957.78 Original Contract: $168,112.48
Total Retainage: $0.00 Contract Changes: $0.00
Total Amount Earned: $160,957.78 Revised Contract: $168,112.48
Page 3
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
5G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-01 to accept a contribution of $1000
from Washburn Computer Group for Fire Department rescue equipment (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received a donation of $1000 from Washburn Computer Group for
purchasing rescue equipment for the Monticello Fire Department. As required by state
statute, if the City accepts the donation of funds, the City Council needs to adopt a
resolution specifying the amount of the donation and its use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contribution and authorize use of funds as specified.
2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-01
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept
contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections
465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain
such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the
donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895.
WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute
contributions or gifts to the City as listed:
DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE
Washburn Computer Group Cash $1000
WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing
facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in
cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the
contributions offered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as
follows:
1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of
Monticello.
2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the
donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another
entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose:
DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE
Washburn Computer Group City of Monticello Fire Dept – rescue equipment
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 11th day of January, 2010.
______________________________
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
1
5H. Consideration of authorizing purchase of a video surveillance system for FiberNet
Monticello Central Office/Video Head-End building (DP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider authorizing the purchase and installation of a video
surveillance system from Secure-Tec Protection of Monticello MN, in the amount of
$8,462.65. This system will provide real time, recorded and stored surveillance of the
FiberNet technical facility properties both inside and out and can be upgraded for future
growth as needed without forklift replacement. The other quotes received were from AV
Guys of Mound MN in the amount of $13,727.00 which was rescinded for liability
concerns and Paragon of Eden Prairie MN in the amount $23,557.42 plus adjusted
cabling charges. (All of these quotes would be subject to MN state sales tax if not
already stated.)
A1. Budget Impact: The purchase of this surveillance system is identified in the
budget and is within the budgeted amount. With this surveillance system in
place, all activity including gate entrance and property conditions (i.e. snow
accumulation on the satellite dishes) will be monitored, recorded and stored. In
addition to on-site monitoring, the head-end building can be monitored remotely
during non-staffed hours and equips the facility appropriately, as will be required
for co-location space rental.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve purchase of surveillance system in the total amount of
$8,462.65 (plus any applicable taxes) from Secure-Tec Protection of Monticello
MN.
2. Motion to deny purchase and seek quotes on an alternative suytem from other
vendors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 and the FiberNet Advisory Board recommended
the purchase at their January, 2010 board meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Quotes for product and services to be rendered:
Secure-Tec Protection
AV Guys (rescinded)
Paragon
*Design specifications and functionality is held proprietary to enhance system security.
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
7. Consideration of adopting an ordinance establishing the 2010 Fee Schedule (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The fees for services performed by the City are set by City ordinance. Every year staff
reviews these fees to make sure the fees charged are in line with what the service costs or
to verify the fees will provide the funds necessary to provide the service. Attached is the
proposed 2010 fee schedule based on staff review of these fees. Where changes to the
fees schedule are being recommended, the old fee is in black (strikeout) with the
proposed fee inserted red. A summary of some of the larger changes are described
below.
In the Cemetery Fees section: increasing the grave transfer fee from $15 to $25.
Also under Cemetery Fees: a new fee is proposed for Memorial Plaque (Bronze)
Stone of $60 plus tax.
The Community Center fees for group rates were added to the schedule and increased
$0.50 each.
Under Community Development - Building section: removal of the housing
inspection fee. The City should not be in the housing inspection business and there is
a fee in this section already for building inspection (non-permit related), so it’s a
duplication of fees.
In Community Development - Planning and Zoning: the only change would be the
addition of labor cost for staff time.
Under Miscellaneous Items, Copies: remove black & white as color copies are just as
inexpensive. So all copies, including color, for $0.25 per sheet. Increasing the cost
of engineering copies (paper) to $2.00 for small and $5.00 for large. and then adding
a fee of $35 per hour for staff time to prepare electronic copies for those who want
them.
Under Miscellaneous Items: add a new item for memorial benches and trees and add a
10% handling charge on the sale of signs.
Public Works changes include: changing the rate for Sidewalk Snow & Ice Control
from an hourly rate to violation system where the fee increases with each offense up
to 3 and the possible addition of a mobilization charge.
The next change to the Public Works fees is increasing the hourly rate for street
sweeping from $100 to $125.
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
2
The final changes to Public Works are the addition of hourly rates for all other public
works equipment and staff time. The average public works employee (excluding
supervisors) cost the City $33.17 per hour for wages and benefits.
Sanitary Sewer and Water fees include a 5% increase to the rates as discussed as part
of the 2010 budget discussion.
The Sanitary Sewer section includes a new fee of 1% of sewer charges for sewer
discharge environmental impact fee.
The Water section has an increase for the smaller water meters based on City cost to
purchase these meters and fees for the water violations (sprinkling), which are in
place but were never listed on the fee schedule.
A1. Budget Impact: Increased fees would provide the possibility of increased
revenues above the amounts budgeted for 2010. However since most of the
increases are relatively small, the impact will be minor. The water and sewer
increases are already incorporated into the 2010 budget.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: This item would have no additional staff workload
impact.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Adopt the ordinance setting the 2010 fee schedule as submitted.
2. Adopt the ordinance setting the 2010 fee schedule with changes.
3. Do not adopt the ordinance setting the 2010 fee schedule.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff supports Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
2010 Fee Schedule
WSB Memo related to review of Trunk Fees
ANIMAL CONTROL
Boarding Fee:$14/per day + tax
Dog License: Altered Pet $10 - 2 years
Unaltered Pet $15 - 2 years
Altered Pet $5.00 - 1 year
Unaltered Pet $7.50 - 1 year
Late Fee $5
Replacement Tag $1
Euthanization/Disposal Fee $37 per animal + tax
Licensed Unlicensed
Fine: Running at Large: First offense $25 $35
Second offense $35 $45
Third offense $50 $60
If impounded Add boarding fee (plus tax)
CEMETERY FEES
Grave Purchasing Fee:Resident Non-Resident
Full Grave (4'x12') Flush Marker Area $750 $950
Full Grave (4'x12') Raised Marker Area $800 $1,000
Infant Grave (2'x6')$200 $200
Cremation Grave (4'x4')$400 $500
Grave Transfer Fee $15 $25
Grave Excavation Fee:
Weekday $400
Weekend $430
Infant Grave Excavation - Weekday $100
- Weekend $125
Cremation Grave Excavation - Weekday $80
- Weekend $105
Grave Staking Fee:$50
Perpetual Care Fee:
New Grave Sales Included in grave price (Maint. Not taxable - Plant Care Taxable)
Grave Sold Pre-1960 $100
Administrative Fee:$50
Memorial Plaque (Bronze) Stone $60 plus tax
COMMUNITY CENTER
Daily Pass Regular Rate Resident Rate
Junior/Senior $5 $4
Adult $6 $5
Family $23 $18
*Climbing wall is not included with Daily Pass.
Group Rates
Adult $4.50
Junior/Senior $3.50
3 Month Membership
Junior/Senior $80 $65
Adult $110 $90
Dual Senior $130 $105
Family $160 $140
Annual Membership (Paid in full Options)
Junior/Senior $240 $180
Adult $310 $240
Dual Senior $385 $290
Family $425 $350
CITY OF MONTICELLO
2010 FEE SCHEDULE
1
Continuous Membership (Monthly**Payment Option)
Junior/Senior $22 $17
Adult $30 $25
Dual Senior $36 $27.50
Family $40 $35
**Automatic Withdrawal.
Cancellation fee applies within 12 months.
Hourly Room Rental Rates (2 Hour minimum required)Resident Regular Non-Profit
Boom Island Room $12 $14 $11
Bridge Room $20 $23 $17
N. or S. Bridge Room $11 $13 $10
River Room $10 $12 $8
Warehouse Room $22 $27 $17
Warehouse Room - Weekend $27 $32 $22
Mississippi Room Private Resident Private Regular Business Resident Business Regular
Half Room Rental $42 $51 $32 $47
Full Room Rental $60 $72 $50 $66
PARK RENTALS Resident Non-Resident
Ellison Gazebo $75 $100
Ellison Log Shelter $75 for 4 hours $100 for 4 hours
West Bridge Park Shelter/Warming House $75 for 4 hours $100 for 4 hours
West Bridge Picnic Shelter $75 for 4 hours $100 for 4 hours
Pioneer Park $75 for 4 hours $100 for 4 hours
Groveland Park Picnic Shelter $75 for 4 hours $100 for 4 hours
Otter Creek $50 for 4 hours $75 for 4 hours
East Bridge Wedding Gazebo $100 for 4 hours $150 for 4 hours
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING
County Assessor Fees: Building Valuation $499,999 or less$25
Building Valuation $500,000 or more $100
Building Inspection (non-permit related):$50/hour
Building Permit Fees:106% of 1997 State recommended
schedule
Building Permit Surcharge:.0005 of building value (State mandated)
Contractor License Check Fee:$25
Building Permit/Records - Duplicate $50/hour
Blight Processing Fee $35
Demolition Permit:106% of 1997 State recommended schedule
Permit is issued under a building permit (follow same procedures as issuing a building permit). Prior to
demolition permit issuance verify with Public Works. Contractor must arrange disconnection:
1) Sanitary sewer; 2) City water & retrieve water mater and 3) approve routing for trucks and heavy
equipment, (if applicable). Excavation permit may also be required.
Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler System 106% of 1997 State Recommended Schedule
Grading Permit:
Existing Single-family Residential $75 per permit + $1,500/acre restoration surety bond.
New Single-Family Residential Development,$150 per permit with no drainage calculation review + restoration
Multi-Dwelling, Commercial and Industrial surety bond of $3,000/first acre; $1,500 each additiona acre or
Properties $350 per permit with drainage calculation review + restoration
surety bond of $3,000/first acre; $1,500 each additiona acre
Land Reclamation/Mining Permit (requires Fee determined by City Council resolution + 100%
subdivision development agreement or CUP)of land restoration costs as determined by City Engineer
Mechanical Permits: Residential $45 base + $9/fixture
Commercial 1.25% of valuation + state surcharge, minimum $100 + state surcharge
Mechanical Surcharge $.50 (State mandated)
2
Mobile Home Permit $95
Moving Buildings:$150 + expense + demolition permit
Plan Review:65% of building permit fee
Plumbing Permits: Residential $45 base + $9/fixture. "Fixture includes such things as traps, toilets,
floor drains, sinks and showers
Commercial 1.25% of valuation + state surcharge, minimum $100 + state surcharge
Plumbing Surcharge:$.50 (State mandated)
Rental Housing License Fee:$45/per building + $15 for each dwelling unit within the building
Rental Housing License Application
(Late Fee)Double the standard license fee
Rental Housing License Transfer Fee $35
Sign Permits: Permanent $50 for first $1,000 of value; $10 each
(minimum fee $50)$1,000 of value
Sign Permits: Temporary $35
State Surcharge on Building Permits:
Valuation of Structure Addition or Alteration Surcharge Computation
$1,000,000 or less -.0005 x valuation
$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 -$500 + .0004 x (Value - $1,000,000)
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000 -$900 + .0003 x (Value - $2,000,000)
$3,000,000 to $4,000,000 -$1200 + .0002 x (Value - $3,000,000)
$4,000,000 to $5,000,000 -$1400 + .0001 x (Value - $4,000,000)
Greater than $5,000,000 -$1500 + .00005 x (Value - $5,000,000)
Utility Locate Fee: Residential $40
Commercial/Industrial $55
Housing Inspection Fees $50/hour (1/4 hour increments; 1 hour minimum charge)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING/ZONING
Administrative Zoning Permits $50
Conditional Use Permit $200 + Deposit (See plat/PUD Deposit Chart)
Driveway Permit $25
Special Home Occupation Permits:$200 + Deposit (See plat/PUD Deposit Chart)
Interim Use Permit:$200 + Deposit (See plat/PUD Deposit Chart)
Labor:
Planner
Engineer
Construction Inspector
Park Dedication (residential)An amount of land equal to eleven percent (11%)
of the total gross land area of the plat shall be
presumptively defined as "reasonably commensurate."
In the event that the subdivider objects to the eleven
percent (11%) standard, the City shall, at the
developer's request and expense, conduct a
specific dedication study of the park system and
the demand placed on the system by the proposed
plat.
Cash-in-Lieu; $1,704 of cash payment per gross acre
of development area
$757 of cash payment per unit
Parking Fund (CCD District)$4,500 per stall
3
Plat Subdivisions:$300 + deposit as follows:
Commercial Residential
0-3 acres $2,000 1-5 units $1,000
4-10 acres $6,000 6+ units $150 per unit
11+ acres $10,000
PUD's:Planned Unit Dev. $200 + deposit as follows:
Commercial Residential
0-3 acres $2,000 1-5 units $1,000
4-10 acres $6,000 6+ units $150 per unit
11+ acres $10,000
Rezoning Request:$200 + Deposit (See plat/PUD Deposit Chart)
Seasonal Outdoor Sales License:$150 per 60 day license
Simple Subdivision $200 + Deposit (See plat/PUD Deposit Chart)
Special Planning Commission Meeting $350
Street Vacation:$200 + Deposit (See plat/PUD Deposit Chart)
Variance:
Single Family - Aplication Fee $200
- Deposit $500
All Other Applications - Application Fee $200
- Deposit $1,000
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Building Burn $2,500
Emergency Response - Car Accident $500
FalseAlarm Policy - First Time No charge
Second Time $250
Third Time or More $350
* Per calendar year.
Fire Dept. Lock Box:$157.00 + tax $164 + tax
LICENSES/PERMITS
Burning Permit:$250 deposit
(to cover expenses, if PW/Fire Dept are called to burn site)
Cigarette License:Tobacco licenses are issued by Wright County
Excavation Permit/Obstruction Permit (RW & Easements)
Obstruction/Trunk Utility Excavations $50
Utility Service Drops
1 Drop $50
2-13 Drops $75
14-25 Drops $100
Gambling License:Licensed through State of Minnesota
Liquor: 1 Day Consumption & Display $25
Temporary On-Sale (Beer)$10/day
Wine, On-Sale $275/per year
Wine/Strong Beer Comb. On-Sale $1,200/per year
Wine/3.2 Beer Com. On-Sale $500/per year
3.2 Beer, On-Sale $275/year
3.2 Beer, Off-Sale $100/per year
Liquor, On-Sale $3,750/per year
Liquor, Sunday Sales $200 (Statutory limit)
Liquor, Setups $250/year
4
Liquor,Club (Veteran's Org).
Membership
200 or less $300 (Statutory limit)
201-500 $500 (Statutory limit)
501-1000 $650 (Statutory limit)
1001-2000 $800 (Statutory limit)
2001-4000 $1,000 (Statutory limit)
Over 4000 $2,000 (Statutory limit)
Pawn Shop:$25 annual license
$1.50 per billable transaction (invoiced monthly)
Transient Merchant:
Daily fees, independent merchant:$50/day + $3.50 application fee
Daily fees, farm/garden fruits & vegetables No fee
(from 6/15 to 9/15)
Annual fees, private premise $75/year + $3.50 application fee
Fireworks Sale $350/year
Transient Merchant: Daily fees operating
under annual permit $10/day + $3.50 application fee
Traveling Shows $100/first day; $50/day for each day thereafter
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Annexation Study:$22.50 + tax
Assessment/Property Search - full $25
Property Bill Search - limited Free
Business List Free
Brochures:Free
City resident list:(Utility Billing List) 0-10 pages $0.25/page (tax included)
City Labels $.50/sheet
Comprehensive Guide Plan - Entire $32 plus tax
Downtown Revitalization Plan $15 plus tax
Transportation Plan $50 plus tax
Copies: copy machine (Black & White)$.25 per copy (tax included)
engineering copier $1.00/small sheet; $3.00/large sheet (tax included)
$2.00/small sheet; $5.00/large sheet (tax included)
electronic $35.00/hour (minimum 1/4 hour; tax included)
Delinquent Certification Processing Fee $50 (per parcel)
Minimum Account Balance of $50
Processed twice a year
Delinquent List (qtrly or year end)$10 + tax (each)
Deposits on City Repair Projects $100-$300 (depending on est. value of work)
Memorials:
Bench $1,500/Bench (tax included)
Tree $300/Tree (tax included)
Notary:$1
Signs: Current listed price + 10% handling Charge + tax
FOLLOWING ITEMS CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM CITY WEB SITE: www.ci.monticello.mn.us
City Ordinances:
Entire set of ordinances $40 plus tax
Zoning Ordinance $20 plus tax
Subdivision Ordinance $8 plus tax
City Code $20 plus tax
Sanitary Sewer $5 plus tax
Assessment Policy $2.50 plus tax 5
Maps: City map (large)$3 (includes tax)
City map (small)$1 (includes tax)
Zoning map $3 (includes tax)
State maps $.55 (includes tax)
Wright County maps $3 (includes tax)
Minutes/Agendas: Faxed $5.00/set + tax
Mailed $7.00/set + tax
Minutes - CD of proceedings $10.00 (plus tax)
PUBLIC WORKS
Chipping:$40 + tax per 1/2 hour or part thereof for the first 2 hours
$70 + tax per 1/2 hour or part thereof for the next hour
No more than 3 hours per year per property
Construction Inspection (City or Engineer)$80/hour
Sidewalk Snow & Ice Control $75/hour per person including equipment
$35.00 per lot - 1st Offence
$50.00 per lot - 2nd Offence
$75.00 per lot maximum after 2nd Offence
$75.00 Mobilization Charge per Offence at Staff Discretion
Boulevard Disease Tree Removal If City is contracted for tree removal,
a credit of 1/2 the cost of removal up to $225 per tree,
with resident responsible for the cost of sales tax.
Boulevard Replacement Tree at 1/2 cost $30 maximum credit each
Labor (no equipment):$35.00/hour
Rodding:$230/hour for one operator & machine
$115/hour or part thereof for 2 operators, machine
and pickup.
Sweeping:$100/hour. Includes operator$125/hour. Includes operator
Vac/Sewer Jet:$287.50/hour for one operator & machine
$345/hour for two operators & machine
Other Equipment (including operator):
Large Front End Loaders $125.00/hour
Mid Size Loaders $75.00/hour
Backhoe Loader $125.00/hour
Motor Grader $125.00/hour
Skid Steere $75.00/hour
Dump Truck $75.00/hour
SANITARY SEWER
Sewer Rates: 1st 3740 gallons.$14.45 minimum $15.15 minimum
Over 3740 gallons.$2.60 per 748 gallons.$2.75 per 748 gallons
Sewer Rates: Special Cases $20.00 x # of people in
household
Industrial Sewer Rates: 0-3740 gallons.$14.45/minimum $15.15 minimum
Over 3740 gallons.$1.40/748 gallons. $1.50/748 gallons
BOD5:$0.252/lb.$0.265/lb.
TSS:$0.345/lb $0.365/lb.
Testing Actual costs + 10%
Sewer Discharge Environmental Fee:1% of sewer bill
All Sewer Customers
Sewer Connection Permit:$75 (residential or commercial)
6
Sewer and Water Combination Permit:$127 (residential)
$127 plus tax (commercial)
Sewer Access Charge:
Residential - Single Family $4,030/Unit
All others per unit equivalent $4,030/Unit
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Residential Unit $1,223/unit
Non-Residential $3,065/per acre
STORM SEWER
Trunk Storm Sewer Fees: (Net acre)$3,245
Alternate Ponding Area -Commercial $6,997 per acre
Alternate Ponding Area - Industrial $8,176 per acre
Alternate Ponding Area - Residential $3,490 per acre
WASTE ITEMS
Garbage Carts-Residential: 90 gallon $4.12 per quarter (incl. 9.75% tax)
60 gallon $3.29 per quarter (incl. 9.75% tax)
38 gallon $2.96 per quarter (incl.9.75% tax)
Garbage Service Fees - Apts: w/o dumpsters
Pickup Disposal $18.90 x # units + 9.75% tax/per quarter
Disposal Surcharge $3.48 x # units (non-taxable) per quarter
Garbage Service Fees - Commercial Residential & Non-Commercial Residential
60 gallon: Pickup Disposal $15.93 x # units + 9.75% tax/per quarter
Disposal Surcharge $2.31 x # units (non-taxable) per quarter
Garbage Cart $3.29 x # units (incl. 9.75% tax) per quarter
90 gallon: Pickup Disposal $18.90 x # units + 9.75% tax/per quarter
Disposal Surcharge $3.48 x # units (non-taxable) per quarter
Garbage Cart $4.12 x # units (incl. 9.75% tax) per quarter
Garbage Cart Transfer Fee $15.00
Garbage Cart Replacement (If lost)
38 - gallon $59.06 + 9.75% tax
60 - gallon $65.31 + 9.75% tax
90 - gallon $70.75 + 9.75% tax
Recycling Bins: (Sales tax paid at purchase; city is end user and owns the bins)
Residential, set of 3 (tote-yellow not available)
Price per bin - Old Style $6.00
Res. Large blue container (RC2000)
Price per bin $8.00 (City covers 1/2 cost for new homes - $4.00)
Wheels Kit $6.25
Apt - Roll-around cart $36 (Equals 1/2 cost)
Apt - Blue Recycling Container,individual $8.15 (Wheel kit $6.25; lid $2.65)
WATER
Hydrant Rates for Contractors:
(#1, #2 and #3 IS ALL TAXABLE IF COMMERCIAL)
1. All contractors must obtain a permit from the Water Superintendent. The permit fee is $500.
This permit will define the hydrant to be used and provides a tally sheet for water usage.
2. The following rates shall apply:
A. $24.25 $25.50 minimum billing for up to 500 cu. ft. or 3,750 gallons.
B. After the 3,750 gallons, the rate shall be $2.35 $2.50 per 100 cu. ft.
or $3.15 $3.30 per 1,000 gallons.
3. The following deposits shall be taken for use of City equipment (no exceptions):
A. Hydrant Wrench $30.00
B. 2-1/2" fill hose $100.00
C. 1-1/2" fill hose with 2-1/2" adapter $100.00
D. 2-1/2" hydrant meter $1,000.00
E. 3/4" and small meter $100.00
F. Nozzle $50.00 7
If equipment is returned within 10 days of permit expiration in good condition, the full amount for water use
and equipment less 10% per month on portion thereof for rent shall be refunded.
Trunk Water Charge:$907/Residential Unit
$2,267 per acre non-residential
Res. Water : 0-3740 gallons. $12.40 minimum $13.00 minimum
3740-29920 gallons $0.78/748 gallons $0.85/748 gallons
over 29920 gallons $0.88/748 gallons $0.95/748 gallons
Minimum Bill for Malfunctioning Meter $150.00 after 4th contact attempt.
Comm Water Rate, Mtr 1
1st 3740 gallons.$14.05 minimum + sales tax$14.75 minimum + sales tax
Over 3740 gallons. $0.88/748 gallons + sales tax$0.95/748 gallons + sales tax
Res., Twnhms &Comm Irrigation Water Rate
1st 3740 gallons $14.05 minimum + sales tax$14.75 minimum + sales tax
Over 3740 gallons $0.88/748 gallons + sales tax$0.95/748 gallons + sales tax
Water Shut Off, then Turned On:$50.00 ($25 on/$25off) + delinquency (taxable if non-res.)
Water Connection Permit:$65 (residential)
$65 plus tax (commercial)
Water Access Charge: 1" line $801 + materials
1-1/4" line $1,217 + materials
1-1/2" line $1,460 + materials
2" line $1,920 + materials
3" line $2,402 + materials
4" line $3,164 + materials
6" line $3,984 + materials
8" line $5,231 + materials
Water Main Tapping - New Services (1" only)$250 each + materials
Water Meters: 5/8" meter $268.00 + sales tax $330.00 + sales tax
3/4" meter $307.00 + sales tax $365.00 + sales tax
1" meter $370.00 + sales tax
1 1/2" meter $550.00 + sales tax
2" meter + up Cost + $50+ sales tax
1" Valves $29.00 + sales tax
Water Availability Charge $34.75
(For those who have city water available but (Billed in July)
choose not to hook up)
Water Violations (sprinkling):
1st Violation No Fee
2nd Violation $25
Each Subsequent Violation $50/per violation
8
Council Agenda: 1/11/10
1
8. Consideration of annual appointments for 2010 (JO/CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of each year, certain appointments be
made. Attached you will find a list of the required appointments that may be approved in
either one single motion or separately. The names in bold print are the ones whose terms
expired in December. City Councilmember assignments noted as “proposed” were
proposed by Mayor Herbst.
a. City Depositories: The City utilizes one bank to provide banking service for the
City which is Wells Fargo. In addition, under Minnesota Statutes 239, the Chief
Financial Officer has also been designated the authority to name other official
depositories for the purpose of investments. The motion includes the
authorization for the Finance Director to designate other depositories when
necessary for investment purposes only.
b. Official Newspaper: In the past the Monticello Times has been designated as the
official paper. The Times sent a letter to the City requesting designation again for
2010.
c. Health Officer: In the past the City has appointed the River Place Clinic, Inc. in
this capacity.
d. Acting Mayor: In 2007, Brian Stumpf was appointed as Acting Mayor to serve
in the absence of the Mayor and it is proposed that he be appointed to this position
again.
e. Representatives to Other Multi-Jurisdictional Bodies: This appointment is for
selecting the City representatives to serve on the Community Education Advisory
Board and the Orderly Annexation Board. As part of the orderly annexation
agreement, the Orderly Annexation Board was created to handle zoning and land
use issues in the area covered by the annexation agreement. Members to the
OOA Board are appointed for one year with Clint Herbst and Brian Stumpf
proposed to serve again in 2010 as the City’s representatives. It is proposed that
Susan Wojchouski be reappointed to the Community Education Advisory Board .
f. Planning Commission: The term of William Spartz expired December 31st and he
has indicated willingness to serve another term to the end of 2012. Susie
Wojchouski is proposed to serve as the Council Liaison to the Planning
Commission.
g. Parks Commission: The term of Gene Emmanuel expired at the end of December
and he has indicated that he is willing to serve another term which would end in
2012. Currently, there are two vacancies on the Parks Commission, which expire
at the end of 2010. The City is in the process of seeking applicants for the
Council Agenda: 1/11/10
2
positions. When applicants are selected, the appointment for those positions will
come back to the Council for approval to the end of 2010. Brian Stumpf is
proposed to serve again in 2010 as Council liaison.
h. Police Advisory Commission: The term of Jason Roubinek was up at the end of
the year and he is willing to serve another term to end in 2012. Dick Slais retired
from the Police Commission at the end of his term in December. Leila McCarty
is recommended for a 3 year term on the Commission to run from 2010 through
2012. Brian Stumpf is proposed to serve as Liaison in 2010 with Glen Posusta
serving as Council alternate.
i. Library Board: The terms of Beth Metzger and Janet Bridgland expire at the end
of the year. They both have indicated their willingness to serve another term to
end in 2012. Susie Wojchouski is proposed to serve as Council Liaison.
j. MCC Advisory Board: The terms of Ron Broekemeier and Sandra Theros expired
in December. Both are willing to serve another term to end in 2012. Council
liaison is Clint Herbst. It is proposed to add Susie Wojchouski as a Council
alternate or to reconfigure the board.
k. Economic Development Authority: The 1-year term of Dan Frie expired in
December and he is willing to serve another 1-year term. Bill Tapper’s term is up
and he is willing to serve a new term, which would run for 6 years ending in
2015. Tom Perrault and Brian Stumpf are proposed for appointment as Council
representatives.
l. IEDC: The terms of Rich Harris, Dick Van Allen, Dan Olson, and Marshall
Smith expired at the end of the year. They are all willing to serve another 3-year
term ending in 2012. Glen Posusta and Clint Herbst are proposed for service as
Council liaisons.
m. FiberNet Advisory Board: The Advisory Board was created by ordinance in April
of 2008. The following three people were appointed to the Board in May of 2005:
Roxane Bakula (4 yr term), Jon Morphew (3 yr term) and Wayne Nehrenz (2 yr
term). No terms are up for renewal this year. Council representatives proposed
for service include Clint Herbst and Glen Posusta.
n. Fire Relief Association: The by-laws of the Relief Association, based on MN
Statute 424A.04, call for an elected official (Mayor), an appointed or elected
official (Clerk/City Administrator), and Fire Chief to serve as members of the
Board of Trustees. The Council can reaffirm these appointments or assign to
another Councilmember or staff member.
In addition to the annual appointments, individual Council members have been appointed
as liaison members with various committees and commissions. Requested changes have
Council Agenda: 1/11/10
3
been made as noted above and on the attached appointment list. The Mayor and Council
may want to discuss whether any other commission assignments need to be changed.
The following appointments are not required to be made annually by statutes but each of
them performs services on an as-needed basis for the City. The consulting firms and/or
individuals are listed below and can be individually discussed by the Council if desired.
1. City Attorney: The firm of Campbell Knutson has served as the City’s general
legal counsel with Joel Jamnik being the primary attorney for Monticello. It
should be noted that the firm of Campbell Knutson is keeping their fees the same
as shown in the attached letter and agreement. By approving Campbell Knutson
as the City Attorney, the proposed contract would also be approved.
The City has also used the services of other legal firms such as Flaherty Hood for
more specialized areas such as annexation and nuclear waste storage; Frank
Madden and Associates for a number of personnel related issues; and Kim Kozar
on issues relating to the wastewater treatment plant.
2. City Auditor: In 2007, the Finance Department sent out RFP’s for audit services
and the Council approved a contract with MMKR for auditing the fiscal years
2007 through 2009. City staff will be evaluating audit services in 2010 for
contracting for future years.
3. Consulting Engineer: Currently WSB & Associates serves as the City’s
consulting engineer. WSB proposes to keep its fee structure the same for 2010.
It is recommended to continue using WSB as the City’s consulting engineer on
projects, as needed.
The City has used other consulting firms for specific projects such as Bolton
Menk for the biosolids drying system and Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik &
Associates for the water tower.
4. City Planner: Northwest Associated Consultants has served as the City Planner
for a number of years. In 2009, the City delayed appointment until an overall
discussion on planning services and a comparative rates analysis could be
competed. With the authorization of the Zoning Ordinance revision in fall of
2009, the City authorized use of NAC for day-to-day planning consultation.
For 2010, it is recommended that NAC continue to serve the City as Planner on
day-to-day planning matters. It is further recommended that at the completion of
the Zoning Ordinance revision the City again review planning consultation
services as a whole. For 2010, NAC’s rates remain flat for City services.
5. Financial Consultants: The City designated Ehlers and Associates as its primary
financial advisor and it is suggested that the City continue with Ehlers and
Associates. Ehlers & Associates has notified the City that no fees will be
Council Agenda: 1/11/10
4
increased for 2010. It should be noted that the City does utilize the services of
other financial consultants on the FiberNet project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Motion approving appointments as listed or with modifications, if any.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of proposed appointments plus commission members and council liaisons
Spreadsheet showing Council and staff meeting responsibilities
Letter and contract from Campbell Knutson
Official Depositories:Wells Fargo
(Chief Financial Officer - authorized to designate other
depositories for investment purposes only)
Official Newspaper:Monticello Times
Health Officer: (1 yr)River Place Physician Clinic
Acting Mayor: (1 yr)Brian Stumpf
Joint Commissions:
Community Education Susie Wojchouski
Joint Planning Board (Annexation area)Clint Herbst & Brian Stumpf
Attorney:Campbell Knutson
Planner:Northwest Associated Consultants (Steve Grittman)
Auditor:MMKR
Consulting Engineer:WSB & Associates
COMMISSION NAME TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM
Planning Commission Rod Dragsten 3 yr 12/2011
(3-year staggered terms)Barry Voight 3 yr 12/2011
William Spartz 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
Lloyd Hilgart 3 yr 12/2010
Charlotte Gabler 3 yr 12/2010
Susie Wojchouski Council
Parks Commission Larry Nolan 3 yr 12/2011
(3-year staggered terms)Nancy McCaffrey 3 yr 12/2011
Gene Emanuel 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
vacant 3 yr 12/2010
vacant 3 yr 12/2010
Brian Stumpf Council
Police Advisory Commission Jim Roberts 3 yr 12/2011
(3-year staggered terms gen members)Jason Roubinek 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
Leila McCarty 3 yr (new)12/2012
Brad Fyle 3 yr 12/2010
Brian Stumpf Council
Glen Posusta Council Alt
Library Board Ralph Olsen 3 yr 12/2011
(3-year staggered terms)Judith Duchac-Gomez 3 yr 12/2011
Beth Metzger 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
Janet Bridgland 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
Sandra Lommel 3 yr 12/2010
Susie Wojchouski Council
2010 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS (proposed)
2010 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS (proposed)
MCC Advisory Board Jennifer Bethke 3 yr 12/2011
(3-year staggered terms)Ron Broekemeier 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
Sandra Theros 3 yr 12/2009 12/2012
Wanda Kraemer 3 yr 12/2010
Clint Herbst Council
Susie Wojchouski Council Alt
Economic Development Authority Dan Frie 1 yr 12/2009 12/2010
(6-year staggered terms)Bill Tapper 6 yr 12/2009 12/2015
Bob Viering 3 yr 12/2010
Bill Fair 4 yr 12/2011
Bill Demeules 5 yr 12/2012
Tom Perrault Council
Brian Stumpf Council
IEDC:Bill Tapper 3 yr 2011
(3-year staggered terms)Elaine DeWenter 3 yr 2011
Patrick Thompson 3 yr 2011
Charlotte Gabler 3 yr 2011
Rich Harris 3 yr 2009 2012
Dick Van Allen 3 yr 2009 2012
Dan Olson 3 yr 2009 2012
Marshall Smith 3 yr 2009 2012
Zona Gutzwiller 3 yr 2010
Wayne Elam 3 yr 2010
Don Roberts 3 yr 2010
Lynne Dahl-Fleming 3 yr 2010
Chris Kruse 3 yr 2012
Glen Posusta Council
Clint Herbst Council
Sandy Suchy Chamber
FiberNet Advisory Board Roxane Bakula 4 yr 12/2013
(5-year staggered terms)Jon Morphew 3 yr 12/2012
Wayne Nehrenz 2 yr 12/2011
Clint Herbst Council
Glen Posusta Council
Council Liaison (ex-officio) appointments to City commissions and committees:
2009 Liaison 2010 Liaison - Proposed
Planning Commission Susie Wojchouski Susie Wojchouski
Parks Commission Brian Stumpf Brian Stumpf
Police Commission Perrault (Posusta, alt.)Stumpf (Posusta, alt.)
Library Board Susie Wojchouski Susie Wojchouski
MCC Advisory Board Clint Herbst Clint Herbst (Wojchouski, alt.)
EDA Stumpf & Perrault Stumpf & Perrault
IEDC Herbst & Posusta Herbst & Posusta
FiberNet Advisory Board Herbst & Posusta Herbst & Posusta
Fire Relief Board of Trustees Clint Herbst Clint Herbst
Personnel Committee Herbst & Posusta Herbst & Posusta
Wellhead Protection Tom Perrault Tom Perrault
WWTF Planning Tom Perrault Tom Perrault
Emergency Planning - Xcel Perrault & Herbst Perrault & Herbst
Emergency Planning - County Tom Perrault Tom Perrault
Xcel Public Relations Susie Wojchouski Susie Wojchouski
YMCA Advisory Board Herbst & Posusta Herbst & Posusta
2010 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS (proposed)
Zoning Ordinance Revision Perrault & Wojchouski Perrault & Wojchouski
M-BL Transportation Coalition Perrault & Wojchouski Perrault & Wojchouski
Wright County Mayor's Assn Clint Herbst Clint Herbst
I-94 West Transportation Coalition Herbst & Wojchouski Herbst & Wojchouski
Higher Ed Subcommittee Susie Wojchouski Susie Wojchouski
Draft Summary of Council, Commission - Subcommittee Assignments and associated estimate of total meetings.
City Council Staff Liaison = Lead Staff Person or High Priority
Projected Clint Tom Brian Susie Glen None City Finance Comm Econ City Public HR Deputy MCC Parks Proj Building PW
and Past Herbst Perrault Stumpf WojchouskiPosusta or Admin Director Dev Dir Dev Dir Engineer Works Mgr Clerk Director Supt Mgr Official Secy
2009 Varies Director C Shuman (NLA)
City Council and Commissions Established by Ordinance
City Council - Regular Meetings 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 6 24 24 12 0 24
City Council - Special Mtngs 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 12
Planning Commission 14 14 6 0 14 3 3 0 0 3 0 18
Design Advisory Committee (dissolved)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EDA 14 14 14 7 14 7 14 2 2
IEDC (Industrial and Econ Dev Committee)12 12 12 6 2 8 12
Parks Commission 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 4
MCC Advisory 12 12 12 1 1 1 12 3
FiberNet Advisory Board (Projected)12 12 12 8 2 1 3 2
Police Advisory Comm - Random Schedule 4 4 4 2 4
Library 4 4 4
Fireman's Relief Association (NEW)1 1 1 1
Sub Total 113 73 50 58 66 64 4 68 56 69 68 48 36 6 36 50 34 0 56 4
Advisory Committees - Councilmember assigned
Natural Resource Inventory Task Force 0 0 0 0
Zoning Ordinance (Signs)0 0 0 0 0 0
Zoning Ordinance (Full Re-write)12 12 12 4 12 4 2
MBL Trans Coalition (should restart 2010)6 6 6 6 2 6 2
YMCA Advisory Committee 12 12 12 6 4 12 12
YMCA - Passive Park Area Committee 12 2
YMCA - Athletic Fields Committee 12 6 12
Personnel Committee 16 16 16 16 16 16
Wastewater Treatment Facility Planning 2 2 2 2
Well Head Protection Committee 3 3 3 3
Emergency Planning (Xcel)3 3 3 3
Emergency Planning - County 3 3 3
Xcel Public Relations Meetings 4 4 4 2
Swan Dispersion 0 0 0 0 0
Storm Water Utility Task Force 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 85 31 29 0 22 28 0 44 22 26 4 11 7 16 0 0 24 0 8 0
Other Committes or Agencies - Mostly staff
Wright County Mayor's Association 4 4
Chamber of Commerce (Board)12 6 6 12
Chamber of Commerce (Governmental Affairs)6 6 3 3
Cable Commission 4 1 4 0
Wright County Econ Dev Corp 12 3 2 12
I-94 West Transportation Coalition 4 1 1 4 1 1 4
Higher Education Subcommitee ????
Marketing Committee ???
Wright County Adminstrators 12 12
Minnesota Parks and Recreation Assoc 4 4
Facilities Group 4 4
Building Associations 4 6
Subtotal 66 5 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 12 28 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 6 0
Grand Total 264 109 79 58 89 92 4 144 78 107 100 63 43 22 40 58 58 0 70 4
Please note that total meetings and assocoated staff attendance are estimated.
In the near future Staff will be reviewing this summary for accuracy and will be looking for opportunities for streamlining … City Council ideas are welcome!
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
9. Consideration of directing staff to review and recommend changes to the City’s
Rental Licensing Ordinance (RH/DH)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review and discuss the current process for updating and
renewing rental housing licenses and determine if there is a need to consider making
adjustments to the program. This report is intended to provide background on how the
current program operates and rationale as to why it is set up as it is.
History. Three years ago city staff started to research the benefits of adopting a rental
licensing ordinance. We made calls to several municipalities that had rental ordinances
and inspection programs in place. Through the input we gained from these cities we were
able to set up the frame work of our ordinance and inspection procedures. We wanted a
program that would be cost effective yet still be very thorough in our process.
In the early stages of ordinance development it was suggested that it would be essential
for us to inspect every unit every year, due to the turn over in renters and landlords. The
most critical question would be how much to charge. After talking with other cities, we
realized the fees that were charged varied greatly from city to city. However, we were
able to get accurate estimates on the time involved in conducting the inspections and
administering the program. These estimates projected a significant workload increase
over the current Building Department duties. In order to keep costs to a minimum while
fulfilling the protection goals of the program, it was determined that units would apply to
receive licenses each year, but be inspected on an every other year schedule.
The original fee proposed was based on the estimated revenue needed to recover cost was
proposed at $60 per building plus $15 per unit therein ($75 for a single family home).
According to the record of the workshop, Council felt the proposed fee was too high and
set it at $45 per structure plus $15 fee per unit ($60 for a single-family home). It is the
view of staff that this fee ($120 for a single family home over two years) would generate
revenue close to covering the cost of program administration, along with the cost of
inspection on a bi-annual basis.
For the most part, the landlord support and cooperation as been excellent and there have
been few complaints regarding the license renewal program.
REASONS FOR EVERY YEAR APPLICATIONS
Owners change
Owner’s information changes. (addresses, contact information)
Property managers change
Easier for the property owner to budget
Easier for record keeping
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
2
REASONS FOR EVERY OTHER YEAR INSPECTIONS
To keep the license fees down by reducing cost of operation
Less of a burden and less intrusive to renters and property owners
To make it possible to manage the inspection load with current staff
INFORMATION WE HAVE LEARNED
Positive feedback from property owners as well as renters
We are making a difference in the safety of rental housing in the city
CHANGING PROCESS TO A TWO-YEAR LICENSE CYCLE
Building Department staff is in agreement that a two-year rotating license cycle could
possibly reduce administrative workload. This would require application only every two
years, consistent with inspections. In short, a license would be valid for a two-year
period.
It would be difficult to implement such a change at this time as we are in the middle of
the busiest period of the 2010 licensing cycle. There has been a great response to the
reminder postcards that were sent out. Approximately 80% of the applications have been
received for the 2010 license cycle.
At this time staff does not have a sufficient system in place for tracking a multi-year
license. It will take time to develop a reliable tracking system for monitoring a new two
year cycle. Staff is open to any other suggestions for changing policy that might make the
process run smoother. Although it would cost less if licenses are renewed every other
year, the added cost and difficulties resulting from changes that occur over this longer
span of time could off-set some of the savings.
A1. Budget Impact: As noted, the current split-year fee system, which totals $120
for a single unit rental, comes close to covering the administrative and inspection
costs for the program. The proposal to adjust to a two-year licensing application
cycle would not impact the fee structure or budget.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: In terms of administration, it is likely that
administrative responsibilities associated with an annual license requirement
would be reduced by moving to a two-year licensing requirement. Again, as the
units are only being inspected every other year, the inspection time involved
would remain relatively static. However, it should also be noted that as the rental
program gains familiarity for both staff and rental properties, both administration
and inspection are moving more smoothly.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to direct staff to provide additional information relating to possible
program modifications as identified by the City Council.
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
3
2. Motion modifying the current program and direct staff to implement change
accordingly effective immediately.
This motion would switch to bi-annual licensing effective for 2010.
3. Motion to table the review of the Rental Licensing Ordinance process until June
2010 and at that time discuss, in detail, changes for 2011.
This motion would allow staff the time to develop the two-year licensing
program for review by the City Council.
4. Motion to make no change to current ordinance at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports making modifications of the program that are in Council’s judgement in
the best interest of the City and residents. However, it is staff’s view that the timing for
such a change would best be deferred to the 2011 licensing cycle, which would be
Alternative #3.
Changing the program/fee schedule at this time would require reimbursement of fees for
2010 and thus create additional paperwork and possible confusion. At this stage in the
program cycle, it makes more economic sense to complete the 2010 Rental Inspection
schedule. Once the bulk of the 2010 rental properties have been inspected, staff could
focus on developing a system for a two year alternating application schedule for the 2011
Rental Licensing cycle and consider its budgetary impacts.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
10. Consideration of policy recommendations as related to City fees and special
assessments (JO, TK, AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In September of 2009, the City Council appointed a small task force to review current
building and development charges for the purpose of providing recommendations for
possible adjustments. The review was to be completed in anticipation of setting the 2010
fee schedule and is in response to feedback from the City Council and the development
community.
Mayor Herbst and Council member Wojchouski were appointed to the task force. The
task force has met twice since that time of appointment. Council member Posusta served
in place of Council member Wojchouski during the first meeting.
During its first meetings, the task force discussed the current timing and application of
overall development charges, including:
Building permit inspection and plan review fees
Sewer & Water Access charges
Trunk Area charges
Special Assessments
Development Incentives
Storm Water Fees
In this report, staff has outlined the general direction of the task force and provided
recommendations resulting from that direction. The recommendations focus on the
policy for payment of these charges and do not analyze potential rate increases or
decreases for 2010.
The purpose of this report is to gain a direction from the full Council on the policy
statements outlined by the task force.
ANALYSIS & STRATEGIES
For commercial, industrial and institutional projects, the majority of fees are paid at the
time of building permit. These charges can generally be classified into two categories:
building costs and development costs.
Building costs include the building plan review fee, the building inspection fee, Sewer
Access Charges (SAC), and Water Access charges (WAC). Building permits also
include other charges, but these items relate directly to fees paid to other entities for
service or materials (such as State surcharge, or the charge for a water meter).
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
2
Development costs include trunk utility charges for watermain, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer, and may also include road improvement costs, including streetlights and
pathway/sidewalk.
In the case of larger coordinated developments (such as Union Crossings or Walmart),
building costs are paid up front, while some or all of the development-related charges
may be assessed by a development agreement. In many cases, the charges for street
improvements have been assessed on a development-wide basis and are not paid with the
building permit.
For residential projects, Monticello’s practice has been to calculate trunk utility charges
with the development agreement at time of final platting. They are then assessed on a per
unit basis and paid off at the time a developer sells a lot to a builder. SAC and WAC fees
are paid at the time of building permit.
Building/Development Fee Strategies
In discussing both building costs and development cost items included in the overall
building permit fee, the Council task force members reviewed and provided direction on
the items as discussed below.
a) Review building permit cost and development cost calculation practices with
the goal of keeping costs and services equivalent.
The Chief Building Official has the authority to approve plan review and
inspection costs based on the actual construction costs provided by the applicant,
versus those per recommended State schedule. This is true for any building
whether it is residential or commercial/industrial.
For the majority of large commercial/industrial/institutional buildings,
Monticello’s permit costs are already being calculated using actual cost estimates
provided by the applicant rather than using the State Schedule (which is based on
a calculation of square footage and construction type).
In residential construction, actual construction cost estimates are very comparable
to the estimated State schedule cost. This is due to the fact that the State schedule
is based on actual construction rates for particular building types. Therefore, most
contractors actually defer to the State schedule.
In discussing the application of SAC/WAC fees, the task force did express some
concern regarding the existing formulas for calculation, given changes in use and
operation of properties over time. Currently, Monticello uses the Metropolitan
Council’s system for assigning SAC and WAC units. It was recognized,
however, that it is the best available structure we have and that developing an
alternative program would require an extensive and detailed study, which would
be time consuming and perhaps cost-prohibitive at this time. Therefore, the
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
3
consensus of the task force was to continue to review each application thoroughly
to determine the most accurate application of SAC/WAC charges.
b) Continue to allow assessment of development costs and adopt a policy for
assessment terms based on a cost scale.
Based on previous Council action, it has been the practice of the City to allow for
special assessment agreements for SAC, WAC and trunk utility charges at the
time of building permit for commercial/industrial/institutional projects. These did
not require individual Council approval and are executed at the time a building
permit was issued. The terms of the assessment are determined by the Finance
Director and are based on the amount to be assessed.
In addition to this existing policy, Council could also adopt a policy allowing
these types of assessments to be deferred. By allowing for the deferred
assessment of fees, the City has the advantage of providing an incentive for
construction of a building, and in turn additional tax base. The business gains the
advantage of having a significant cost deferred until they are firmly established.
The task force has presented this option for the full Council’s consideration. It
would be recommended that if an assessment were going to be deferred, it would
require the approval of the City Council. This is consistent with past practice as
related to deferral of street and trunk utility costs through development agreement.
Under the program above, the applicant would continue to have the ability to elect
to pay some of their costs upfront and assess others. For example, they could still
pay the SAC/WAC fee with the building permit, but defer trunk charges.
For consistency related to the possible assessment and deferral of these charges, it
would also be recommended that Council adopt a scale based on the costs to be
assessed. The proposed scale could be modified from that suggested below:
Building and/or
Development Costs
Assessment Term Deferral
Allowable
Interest
Rate 2010
$5,000 - $10,000 3 years No 6%
$10,000 - $20,000 5 years No 6%
$20,000 - $250,000 10 years Yes – 3 years 6%
$250,000 + 15 years Yes – 5 years 6%
Levied Special Assessment Strategies
The City Council will most likely receive additional requests for reapportionment or
deferral of levied special assessments. Special assessments already in place relate mostly
to major street and utility improvements projects.
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
4
Due to the complexity related to each individual assessment, as well as statutory public
hearing requirements, the task force recommendation is to allow Council to consider the
reapportionment and/or deferral of previously levied special assessments on an individual
request basis only.
Similar to the recent request made for the reapportionment of special assessments for
Outlot D of Otter Creek Crossings, a property owner could request that the City
reapportion or even defer levied special assessments. Adopting a deferral does present
risk, as there are a considerable number of special assessment projects which have been
levied over the past ten years. Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terms of
bond repayment. It is estimated that the City has special assessments totaling around
$14,107,859.69 that could be subject to requests for deferrals or reapportionment.
However, as noted previously, the inability of the property owner to pay the levied
assessments also has a negative impact on the City’s ability to make the bond payment.
If by extending the assessment out, it allows the property owner to continue to pay the
property taxes and keep them current, the City is better off receiving a partial
(reapportioned) payment as compared to receiving no payment.
In surveying the policies of a limited number of surrounding communities on some of
these strategies, the following information is presented for reference and comparison
purposes.
City Assess SAC/WAC Assess Trunk/Area
Charges
Deferral of
Assessments
Becker No – Payable at permit No – Payable at permit
(including residential
projects. ALL trunk due
prior to first permit)
Request Basis
Big Lake No - Payable at
building permit.
The City has approved
assessment of these
charges over limited
duration (usually 3
years) in certain
circumstances where
the fees are fairly high.
Developer has to
request this from the
City.
No - trunk fees are due at
time of development
agreement (or building
permit if no development
agreement on a project)
Request Basis
Monticello Yes Yes Request Basis
(currently by
development
agreement only)
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
5
St. Michael No – but provide a 50%
reduction in charges for
commercial/industrial
projects (new and
expansions)
Limited – if allowed,
assessed with short terms
(less than 7 years)
Request Basis
Incentive Program Strategies
The following strategies represent new programs that could be adopted by the Council to
further support efforts to spur development.
a.) Develop a business expansion incentive program.
The task force also requested that staff review the possibility of an incentive
program for the expansion or the relocation with expansion for existing
Monticello businesses. In recommending this program, the task force cited goals
of encouraging the growth and vitality of local businesses, building tax base, and
developing employment opportunities.
The idea would be to customize a reduction in development costs (and possibly
SAC/WAC) for each project based on a sliding scale, which could include one or
a combination of the following factors:
Cost of the expansion project
Number of jobs created
Adaptive re-use of vacant and/or blighted property
Each project would be reviewed and approved individually by the City Council,
as the application of incentives will vary based on the project specifics.
The development of such a program would be in addition to the financial tools
already available through the EDA, which include the Small Cities loan program,
the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund and the potential use of TIF. Any and all
of these programs could be combined depending on the type of project.
If the full Council is interested in moving this program forward, staff will
complete additional research and develop a set of criteria for Council review in
February.
b.) Review and reduce SAC fees for restaurants
On more than one occasion, the City has heard feedback that SAC charges for
restaurants can be prohibitive to the start-up of new enterprises. SAC charges for
restaurants often seem comparatively higher than for other new businesses,
specifically due to the increased strain that restaurants place on the municipal
sanitary sewer system.
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
6
If Council is interested in considering a policy for the reduction of SAC fees for
restaurants (whether for a limited time or as a permanent development strategy),
staff will complete additional research and provide a program outline at an
upcoming meeting. It should be noted that if a reduction to restaurant SAC were
to be considered, the reduction would likely shift costs to the balance of system
users.
Storm Water System Maintenance Funding
In addition to development fees, the Committee also included in its discussion the
development of a revenue source for use in funding storm water system maintenance
projects.
The storm water system is a critical piece of the City’s infrastructure. Good storm water
management protects the quality of Monticello’s water supply, mitigates environmental
problems, protects the water quality of the Mississippi and other receiving water bodies,
and protects against the loss of life and/or property by preventing localized flooding.
As you know, the City has been building storm sewer facilities such as outlets, inlets and
ponds necessary for managing storm water. As with any infrastructure, these facilities
need repair and maintenance over time. However, a funding source for this work has not
been established.
Some months ago, it was suggested that a committee be formed for the purpose of
developing a storm water utility program. This committee was intended to work with the
community to determine the structure for collection of funds. The goal was to create a
fee system based on use. The more storm water generated, the more a property owner
would pay into this fund.
In reviewing the situation, the task force compared and contrasted a proposed user fee
with an overall general fund expense. The task force would like Council to consider
collecting revenue for this purpose via general taxes as opposed to development of a
utility fee program.
The task force proposes shifting to a funding structure that recognizes storm water
maintenance as a broad infrastructure improvement that benefits the greater community,
and therefore should be paid for by general taxes. For this type of structure, a budget for
the development and maintenance of the system would need to be developed and then
incorporated into the general fund budget each year.
More discussion on a long-term user fee could continue at a later time, as the group
indicated that as a major infrastructure component, it is essential that the program
consider all impacts and be as equitable as possible. At a minimum, it is important that a
fund get started to be used in making necessary storm water repairs over time.
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
7
CONCLUSION
With the above information in hand, the following policies have been prepared for review
and consideration by the City Council. Included are only those recommendations made
by the task force.
In their motion, Council can eliminate or alter each of these based on discussion. Please
note that this not an all-encompassing list as related to other City fees and assessment
policies.
2010 BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT FEE & ASSESSMENT POLICIES
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continue the practice of calculating building permit costs for
commercial/industrial/
institutional plan review and inspection based on actual construction costs at the
request of the applicant.
2. Continue the practice of allowing SAC/WAC and trunk utility charges to be
assessed. Council action on individual requests would not be required.
3. Adopt a new policy allowing SAC/WAC and trunk utility charges to be deferred
for a set time (versus assessed payable in the following year). Council action on
individual requests would be required.
4. In relationship to policies 1-3 above, adopt a scale for deferral and assessment.
The proposed scale could be modified from the scale suggested below:
Building and/or
Development Costs
Assessment Term Deferral
Allowable
Interest
Rate 2010
$5,000 - $10,000 3 years No 6%
$10,000 - $20,000 5 years No 6%
$20,000 - $250,000 10 years Yes – 3 years 6%
$250,000 + 15 years Yes – 5 years 6%
5. Direct staff to research the development and implementation of a Business
Expansion and Relocation Incentive Program.
6. Direct staff to research the possible reduction in SAC fees for restaurant
development.
7. Implement a Storm Water Utility & Maintenance program as described, which
would require the development of an annual budget, which would be funded
through general taxes.
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
8
8. No retroactive policy would be recommended for any of the above. For example,
a 100,000 square foot commercial building already in place could not be refunded
their development fees and then have the costs assessed instead.
9. The reapportionment and/or deferral of previously levied special assessments will
be considered by the City Council on an individual request basis only.
A1. Budget Impact: These recommendations obviously represent risk and potential
cost to the City. The City takes the risk of having assessments go unpaid with
buildings and infrastructure already in place. Additionally, with infrastructure
such as trunk utility systems and road improvements, there are a considerable
number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten
years.
The City has already assumed a certain level of risk based on the current policy of
special assessment of residential trunk charges for new development, adoption of
various special assessment agreements which defer payment, and by allowing for
special assessment of SAC/WAC and trunk charges with past
commercial/industrial/institutional projects.
There is the potential for a significant budget impact if the Council elects to fund
the storm water utility and maintenance program through the general fund. An
annual project budget will need to be determined and then included for funding
with the general levy. It will be critical that if the program is funded in this
manner, an annual allocation is funded in order to properly maintain the system.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: For recommendations 1-3, staff workload requirements
are straightforward and would require only the modification of assessment
agreement templates based on the request. If Council elects to review special
assessments of the various items on a case-by-case basis this does represent more
staff time in preparing analysis and reports.
Recommendations 5 – 7 would require more staff time in preparing the needed
background information for formulation of a program or policy recommendation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the policies as recommended in the staff report of 01/11/10.
2. Motion to approve the following policies as recommended and revised by the City
Council:
a. (Council to insert recommendations from above as desired)
2. Motion to table for further review and discussion by the task force.
City Council Agenda: 01/11/10
9
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendations presented are those of the development fee task force. Staff
recognizes that these are policy decisions for the City Council. Staff will provide
additional research and information as needed by the full City Council to make their final
recommendation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
1
11. Consideration of establishing an Administrative Assistant position and authorize
advertisement of the position (JO, TE)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
When Dawn Grossinger retired from her position as Deputy City Clerk in June 2009,
City staff, in an effort to be budget conscious, suggested that, on a trial basis, an attempt
would be made to forestall filling the position through redistribution and reorganization
of duties to other staff. Under the reorganization plan, Cathy Shuman would take the
major share of Dawn’s duties with the Finance Department taking some.
Recently, City staff sat down to review the Deputy City Clerk’s job description to look at
what had been successfully transferred to other existing staff and also identified tasks that
weren’t getting done. Upon reviewing the job description and information Shuman
provided, it was determined that tasks Grossinger had previously done had been
prioritized and done according to immediate need (i.e. council minutes, postings, etc…)
but we were falling behind on things such as ordinance updating, filing, website postings,
records retention and organization and other miscellaneous but essential City functions.
Most recently, the City Census tract update, which was due out last week was postponed.
The longer these tasks are put of, the more difficult it becomes to get caught up.
Additionally, there continues to be an administrative workload from multiple City Hall
departments that continues to lag behind.
City staff reported to the Personnel Committee in late 2009 our concerns regarding work
that had been identified as not getting done and made the recommendation that we hire
additional staff to take on that work. Staff was directed to see if the Public Works
department would be able to shift one of the two full-time Public Works Administrative
staff members over to City Hall to help out. This option was reviewed in depth with
Public Works staff and it was determined by the both Public Works staff and the
Personnel Committee that, due to their workload demands at Public Works, they were
unable to assist at City Hall.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of City Staff and the Personnel Committee to
establish a new full-time Administrative Assistant position for City Hall. Cathy Shuman
would continue to handle portions of the City Deputy Clerk’s position which would allow
us the ability to hire a lower level Administrative Assistant for City Hall. The
Administrative Assistant would take on some of the lower level tasks that our City
Deputy Clerk was previously responsible for and would also provide much needed
administrative support for City Hall staff. Attached is a preliminary job description for
the Administrative Assistant that outlines specifically areas of responsibility.
A1. Budget Impact: This Administrative Assistant position is a Grade 8 position
with a pay range of $17.09-$22.22 per hour ($35,547.20-$46,217.60 annually).
Although not budgeted for 2010, there were two positions vacated and not filled
Council Agenda: 01/11/10
2
last year which leaves money in reserves to fund this position for the remainder of
2010.
In addition, in the event the City receives the transition aid $435,000, a portion of
these funds could be applied to pay for the position in 2010. The position would
be included in the budget for 201l.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Establishing the Administrative Assistant position at
City Hall will ensure that all areas of the work that the former City Deputy Clerk
performed are covered as well as free up time for other City department heads to
concentrate on their main responsibilities.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve establishing the position of Administrative Assistant for City
Hall and authorize advertising for the position.
2. Motion to deny approval of establishing the position of Administrative Assistant
at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and the Personnel Committee recommends Alternative #1, approving the
establishment of the Administrative Assistant position for City Hall. This is a necessary
position that will fill a portion of the void left by the City Deputy Clerk as well as provide
City Hall staff with much needed administrative support so that basic record keeping gets
done in a timely fashion and allow more efficient use of tax dollars by allowing higher
paid staff to focus on higher level responsibilities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Administrative Assistant Job Description
Administrative Assistant – City Hall
City of Monticello
Title: Administrative Assistant – City Hall
Effective Date: September 30, 2007
Revised: November 4, 2009
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
General Statement of Duties: Performs semi-skilled to skilled administrative support work for City Hall.
Supervision received: Works under the general supervision of the Community Development Director;
receives regular work direction from the City Administrator, City Deputy Clerk/Special Projects
Coordinator, City Engineer, Economic Development Director and Human Resources Manager.
Supervision Exercised: None.
TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED
The listed examples may not include all duties performed by all positions in this class. Duties may vary
somewhat from position to position within a class.
*Attends meetings of Economic Development, Planning Commission, MCC, and Parks Commission and
prepares minutes.
*Acts as back-up for minute taking at City Council meetings and Boards and Commissions.
*Obtains necessary attachments, makes copies and/or distributes agenda packets for the City Council,
Planning and Parks Commissions, DAT, IDC, EDA, MCC and Police Commission.
*Performs general clerical support, answering phones, providing information, scheduling meetings and
meeting space, word processing, preparing and/or editing spreadsheets, data-entry, copying, faxing
and emailing.
*Assists with the public hearing notice process including: preparing, publishing, mailing, preparing affidavits
and maintaining accurate records.
*Coordinates mailings for public hearing and improvement project notices, including appropriate parties to
notify, typing and sending notices.
*Assists with maintaining comprehensive filing system to include, grading permits, engineering plans, public
hearing notices, agendas, minutes, CUPS, audits, environmental studies, easements, maps, etc.
*Assists with maintaining electronic records retention system.
*Assists in updating Community Development, Economic Development and Engineering publications,
including maps, handbook, brochures and other informational materials and maintains adequate
supplies at the front counter.
Maintains assigned sections of the City website with agendas, minutes and other relevant information.
*Maintains cable-access City bulletin board.
*Schedules and prepares use of audio-visual equipment for the various City departments; loads and manages
the Smartboard files.
Provides secondary backup support for the receptionist during breaks and scheduled absences.
*Assists in the completion of various surveys for State and Federal agencies.
*Creates various reports and forms for the Admin Department.
Administrative Assistant – City Hall
City of Monticello
Notarizes documents.
*Assists the Program and Projects Coordinator with ordering, upgrades and billing related to City cell
phones.
Performs other duties as needed or required.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES
*Considerable knowledge of standard office practices, including the operation of office equipment and
personal computers with word processing, database and spreadsheet applications.
*Considerable knowledge of document preparation, including letters, memos, agenda items, agreements,
reports, tables, graphs, etc.
*Working knowledge of effective customer service practices.
*Working knowledge of the public hearing and notification process.
*Working knowledge of the functions and responsibilities of engineering, community development and
economic development.
Working knowledge of audio-visual equipment.
*Considerable skill in the operation of a personal computer, including Windows, word processing,
spreadsheet, database, email and Internet applications.
*Considerable ability to develop and maintain relationships and to communicate effectively both orally and
in writing.
*Considerable ability to type and enter data with speed and accuracy.
*Considerable ability to develop and maintain a comprehensive filing system.
*Considerable ability to work independently and as a member of a team.
*Considerable ability to organize and prioritize work and coordinate and track procedures and processes.
*Working ability to use fine motor skills and repetitive motions while using a computer or writing.
*Working ability to sit for long periods of time.
Working ability to research and analyze data.
Ability to attend various evening City meetings as needed.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Three years of administrative support experience including record-keeping, considerable public contact, and
extensive use of a computer with standard office software, Internet and email.
* Asterisked items are essential requirements of the job.
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
1
12. Council Update - Feasibility Report preparation for 2010 Street Reconstruction,
City Project No. 10C001 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On October 12, 2009 Council authorized staff to prepare a Feasibility Report for a 2010
Street Reconstruction Project as a continuation of the City’s Overall Street
Reconstruction Program as approved by Council on February 9, 2004. The Feasibility
Report addresses the need for the project and defines its scope, current conditions,
proposed improvements, required permits and approvals, additional right-of-way and/or
easement needs, estimated costs, funding splits, availability of funds including the
potential for assessments, and project schedule.
Proposed Design Elements
The streets currently proposed to be reconstructed with the 2010 project include:
Area 4A (West River Street area)
West River Street – Chestnut Street to Pine Street (TH 25)
Front Street – Linn Street to Locust Street
Chestnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Elm Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Vine Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Minnesota Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Maple Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Linn Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Locust Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Walnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Prairie Road
Prairie Road – Nicholas Circle to Broadway (CSAH 75)
The total length of street reconstruction is about 2 miles. All the streets in Area 4A were
constructed in 1977 and Prairie Road was constructed in 1980 so all the streets are about
30 years old and are reaching the end of their design lives. Area 4A was originally
planned to be reconstructed in 2006 and Prairie Road was originally planned to be
reconstructed as part of Area 6 in 2008. Reconstruction includes improvements to
pavement, curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain, along with other
appurtenant work as identified.
The following design elements are currently built into the Feasibility Report:
All streets will be reconstructed as urban sections with curb & gutter and storm
sewer
The width of West River Street will be reduced from 36-feet to 32-feet because:
o Sidewalk is being proposed along the entirety of West River Street so the
street will no longer need to accommodate pedestrian traffic.
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
2
o The addition of sidewalk increases the impervious area draining to the
street so reducing the street width prevents the need to reconstruct the
storm sewer.
o Narrower streets cost less to maintain.
o Narrower streets reduce vehicle speeds.
o Narrower streets take less time for pedestrians to cross.
6-foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on the:
o North side of West River Street from Otter Creek Road to Pine Street (TH
25), including connecting walks to West Broadway along Elm, Maple and
Locust Streets with a minimum 8-foot boulevard width.
o South side of Prairie Road with a minimum 5-foot boulevard width.
Repairing and/or replacing deteriorated trunk sewer and water lines.
Replacing all deteriorated watermain valves and fire hydrants.
Repairing and/or replacing deteriorated and leaking sewer and water service lines.
Providing enhanced pathway lighting at West Bridge Park and the TH 25
underpass.
Repairing the Chestnut Street lift station by installing new doors, pumps, controls,
etc.
Walnut Street will be reconnected to West River Street across from the existing
leg of Walnut Street that connects to Front Street. While this will result in a slight
reduction of parking stalls, most notably along the store fronts west of Walnut
Street, it will help to reconnect the downtown area to the City parks and the
Mississippi River.
Installing conduit for FiberNet Monticello.
These items will all be discussed in more detail during the Council meeting.
Assessment Strategies
Staff is proposing the following assessment strategies for this project:
Sidewalk construction costs to be assessed using area-wide assessments, similar
to the program used to fund sidewalk construction on the 2006 Street
Reconstruction Project. This means 25% of the sidewalk construction costs will
be directly assessed, with the remaining costs to be spread over an area-wide
basis.
Street construction costs to be assessed on a per unit basis for residential
properties and on a per front foot basis for commercial properties, which is
consistent with how we have assessed for this work on previous improvement
projects.
Corner lots will be assessed for the work occurring adjacent to their property,
regardless of whether they were assessed during a previous improvement project
or not. Staff considers this to be the most equitable approach to take.
On previous street reconstruction projects on which bonds were used to pay for
construction, we held special assessments to 20% of the total project cost, which is the
minimum allowed per state statute. Given the current budgetary constraints, staff is
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
3
proposing to increase special assessment amounts by at least 5% for the 2010 project.
Since many other cities have average assessments in the $5,000 to $8,000 range for
residential properties on similar projects, staff considers this proposed increase to be
reasonable.
A1. Budget Impact: The City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Plan includes
$1,886,750 for this project and identifies the following funding splits:
$540,000 – State-Aid funds
$125,000 – Storm sewer access funds
$329,000 – Water access funds
$200,000 – Sanitary sewer access funds
$ 87,250 – Street reconstruction funds
$605,500 – Bond funds and/or special assessments
However, the costs identified in the CIP for area 4A do not include sufficient
costs for the improvements being proposed to Chestnut Street, the Chestnut Street
lift station, all the proposed utility improvements or the reconstruction of Prairie
Road. Based on the estimated costs identified to date this project will cost
substantially more that what is listed in the CIP.
It should be noted that if we do not spend down our State-Aid funds in 2010,
thereby reducing our account balance, we will lose some of our annual allocation
for 2011. A fair portion of the engineering costs to prepare the Feasibility Report
are eligible to be funded with State-Aid funds. And because bond rates are so low
right now, staff would recommend the use of bonds to fund the entire project.
The bond payments would then be made from the funds listed above.
It should also be noted that the bidding environment for street improvement
projects has been very favorable over the last couple of years due to the current
economy. In fact, bid prices have been coming in around 20% less than similar
projects constructed several years ago. All indications are that this favorable
bidding environment will continue in 2010 which will likely result in significant
savings for the City if we move ahead with this project this year.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Various staff from the Engineering and Public Works
Departments will spend a considerable amount of time working on this project,
both during the design and construction phases. Staff will also need assistance
from WSB and Associates for the development of plans and specifications and for
managing the project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
While no motion is required by Council this evening, staff welcomes any comments or
direction from Council on any of the design elements being proposed or on the
assessment strategy being considered as this will help ensure that the Feasibility Report
reflects Councils expectations for this project.
City Council Agenda: 1/11/10
4
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to recommend moving ahead with this project for the reasons noted
herein.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None included – Additional data and figures to be presented during the Council meeting.